Fewer opinion polls, longer parliamentary terms

A three year term not only makes reform more difficult, it encourages politicians to focus on popularity. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

AAP: Alan Porritt

Australia has had three opposition leaders and two prime ministers since Labor came to office in 2007.

Such churn is unprecedented in Australian political history and there may be more to come.

If Julia Gillard cannot restore her credibility and Labor's popularity, she may yet be replaced, either by a "Third Man", or – less likely – by a drafted Kevin Rudd.

On the other hand, if she does start to make up more ground then Tony Abbott may find Coalition hardheads asking whether he is the Opposition leader for the task at hand.

(That does not mean Malcolm Turnbull – the fact that he is the Liberal most popular with Labor voters is enough for most Coalition backbenchers to rule him out of contention.)

Since the mid-1990s, at least, neither Labor nor the Coalition has tolerated a leader who loses popularity.

This is the iron law of modern Australian politics. But is it the consequence of the blizzard of opinion polls which have settled on the front pages of the nation's broadsheets with ever increasing frequency or of a structural fact embedded in the nation's democracy.

There have been nine changes of opposition leader since Alexander Downer took over from John Hewson in 1994.

Two of them, Downer and Simon Crean, were not even permitted to test their mettle with the electorate.

One prime minister, Rudd, has been knocked off without being allowed to face re-election.

John Howard would have had his commission terminated in 2007 had he not stared down his cabinet and had Peter Costello been more effective in presenting himself as a change agent.

Backbench obsession with opinion polls has certainly played a significant role in all this instability, but so has the fact that Australia has a very short parliamentary term compared with other democracies.

Only the United States, where members of the House of Representatives face the voters every two years, has a shorter electoral cycle and it is arguable that Congressmen and women never stop campaigning.

In New Zealand, it's three years, Germany and Japan four, Italy, Ireland, Canada and Britain five.

This means that in Australia there is even less time than elsewhere for a new government to establish itself and start engaging in necessary, if unpopular reform, before setting itself up for the task of re-election.

It is arguable, for example, that Howard would not have had time for the necessary groundwork to introduce a Goods and Services Tax in his first term, whether or not he had made his "never ever" pledge.

Business has long pushed for longer parliamentary terms, but done little to support politicians when they actually try to do something about it.

Back in 1988 Australians had the opportunity to vote in a referendum for four-year terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It was overwhelmingly defeated with less than 33 per cent of the electorate in favour and more than 67 per cent against.

The Howard opposition of the time campaigned against the idea, arguing that a longer term should be retained for the Senate, but also because there were three other referendum questions. It was easier to tell the electorate to vote against all three rather than to pick and choose.

A three-year term not only makes reform more difficult, it encourages politicians to focus on popularity and that in turn makes the frequent publication of opinion polls more attractive.

The answer is not fewer opinion polls, but longer parliamentary terms.

But as Darryl Kerrigan put it in The Castle:

"Tell him he's dreaming."

There has also been some talk in the wake of the Gillard-Rudd showdown of the desirability of public involvement in the leadership contests of Australian political parties.

This may seem like a good idea as the mass base of the parties evaporates, but this week's US Republican presidential primary in Michigan may point to some unintended consequences.

Exit polls show that 10 per cent of those voting were actually Democrat supporters, 50 per cent of whom voted for the right wing Rick Santorum with just 15 per cent for Mitt Romney.

CNN reported that close to 40 per cent of those who labelled themselves "liberal" Democrats cast a ballot for Santorum.

This was strategic or "mischief" voting at its worst, designed to undermine the Republicans' chances of winning the presidency rather than to endorse the person the voters in question thought was the best candidate on the day.

Primaries may seem like a good idea at the time, but they may just make populism rather than principle an even more important commodity in Australian politics even more than it is in this era of permanent polling.